Gosh no, yo!! Only white christians should be entitled to health treatment yo!! But we should all be entitled to own guns!! HAHAHAHAHAHA

So would you rather this discussion be moved to a different thread?

YOU KNOW, GOODBAR, PEOPLE ALSO ABUSE GOD'S GRACE. THE WHOLE 'WELL, MY SINS ARE FORGIVEN SO I MIGHT AS WELL KEEP SINNING' THING. DOES THAT MEAN THAT GOD SHOULDN'T OFFER FORGIVENESS AND GRACE, YO? BECAUSE OF HUMAN BEINGS BEING WHAT THEY ARE?

AND, LIKE, ISN'T IT UNFAIR, BY YOUR LOGIC, THAT GOD ASKS PEOPLE TO TITHE? LIKE THAT WAY THE RICH PEOPLE HAVE TO GIVE MORE MONEY, YO!

YOU KNOW, GOODBAR, PEOPLE ALSO ABUSE GOD'S GRACE. THE WHOLE 'WELL, MY SINS ARE FORGIVEN SO I MIGHT AS WELL KEEP SINNING' THING. DOES THAT MEAN THAT GOD SHOULDN'T OFFER FORGIVENESS AND GRACE, YO? BECAUSE OF HUMAN BEINGS BEING WHAT THEY ARE?

If someone possesses that type of antinomian attitude, then chances are they never had that grace to begin with. That's why we make a distinction between the visible and invisible church. It's the same reason we exercise church discipline and excommunication.

AND, LIKE, ISN'T IT UNFAIR, BY YOUR LOGIC, THAT GOD ASKS PEOPLE TO TITHE? LIKE THAT WAY THE RICH PEOPLE HAVE TO GIVE MORE MONEY, YO!

How is that unfair? Everyone gives a tenth of what they earn to the covenant community. It's a flat rate, not a progressive tax. Moreover, unlike taxes, nobody threatens to throw you in jail if you don't tithe.

YES, BUT MY POINT IS THAT THE GRACE IS THERE, FOR ANYONE. AND SURE, PEOPLE WHO ARE CHRISTIANS CAN AND DO ABUSE IT. BEING A CHRISTIAN DOESN'T MAKE SOMEONE PERFECT, YO - JUST FORGIVEN. CHRISTIANS SIN ALL THE TIME!

AND THE BIBLE SAYS THAT GOD EXPECTS A LOT MORE FROM THOSE TO WHOM MORE IS GIVEN. TITHING ISN'T ACTUALLY A FLAT RATE, IF YOU LOOK AT IT PROPERLY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TITHING PEOPLE WERE ASKED TO DO IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, IT ACTUALLY COMES TO A LOT MORE THAN 10%. AND OF COURSE, ONCE YOU GET INTO THE NEW TESTAMENT, MUCH MORE IS ASKED. AND NO, GOD DOESN'T THREATEN TO THROW US INTO JAIL, BUT DOES THAT MEAN YOU WOULDN'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY IF HE ASKED YOU TO SELL ALL YOUR POSSESSIONS AND GIVE TO THE POOR, YO? AND DO YOU NOT BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY CONSEQUENCES FOR DISOBEDIENCE? AND WHAT ABOUT WHEN JESUS ASKS US TO SUBMIT TO THE POWERS OVER US, AND PAY OUR TAXES, YO? DO YOU DISAGREE WITH HIM?

YES, BUT MY POINT IS THAT THE GRACE IS THERE, FOR ANYONE. AND SURE, PEOPLE WHO ARE CHRISTIANS CAN AND DO ABUSE IT. BEING A CHRISTIAN DOESN'T MAKE SOMEONE PERFECT, YO - JUST FORGIVEN. CHRISTIANS SIN ALL THE TIME!

Actually, God's grace is a sovereign grace--a particular grace--which He extends to His elect whom He chose before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). Grace itself is not abused so much as the "old man" returns into the life of the believer, which happens from time to time. Indeed, we sin every single day in word, though, and deed. I don't understand what this has to do with the welfare-state.

AND THE BIBLE SAYS THAT GOD EXPECTS A LOT MORE FROM THOSE TO WHOM MORE IS GIVEN. TITHING ISN'T ACTUALLY A FLAT RATE, IF YOU LOOK AT IT PROPERLY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TITHING PEOPLE WERE ASKED TO DO IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, IT ACTUALLY COMES TO A LOT MORE THAN 10%. AND OF COURSE, ONCE YOU GET INTO THE NEW TESTAMENT, MUCH MORE IS ASKED

Certainly more is asked of those who have more, but we're talking about the Kingdom of God, not the kingdom of man. Given the two-kingdom doctrine, we cannot possibly expect the church and state to function in the same way. Tithing and other offerings to the covenant community are done in a completely different manner than taxation by the civil magistrate. The former is voluntary whereas the latter is forced. The magistrate is not capable of binding the conscience.

AND WHAT ABOUT WHEN JESUS ASKS US TO SUBMIT TO THE POWERS OVER US, AND PAY OUR TAXES, YO? DO YOU DISAGREE WITH HIM?

Where did I ever dispute this? Before the last Bloop crash I wrote an entire entry about the virtues of obeying the lawful commands of the civil magistrate. That doesn't mean, however, that everything the magistrate does is ethically acceptable and beyond reproach. Nor does it mean that, for example, some forms of taxation are better than others. We can and ought to have that debate. I happen to think that taxes on honest labor are grossly immoral; I prefer a tariff system instead, coupled with excise taxes.

WELL, WE PRAY 'THY KINGDOM COME, THY WILL BE DONE, ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN'. YOU CAN'T ARGUE THAT IT'S WRONG TO EXPECT RICHER PEOPLE TO GIVE MORE WHEN YOU AGREE WITH IT IN A RELIGIOUS SENSE. YOUR FAITH SHOULD CARRY THROUGH INTO YOUR WHOLE LIFE, YO!

AND BACK IN BIBLE DAYS, TITHES WERE TOTALLY COMPULSORY. THEY WERE PART OF THE LAW. I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU SAY IT IS 'VOLUNTARY' TO OBEY GOD, YO. LIKE IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN, YOU HAVE GIVEN YOURSELF AS A SERVANT TO CHRIST, TO OBEY HIM. THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES, SURELY, IN YOUR LIFE IF YOU DISOBEY GOD, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY NOT BE SAME CONSEQUENCES OF DISOBEYING THE LAW OF THE LAND.

AND IN GENERAL, BIBLICAL TEACHINGS ARE THAT THOSE WITH MORE SHOULD GIVE TO THOSE WHO HAVE LESS, RATHER THAN HOARDING IT ALL FOR THEMSELVES. SO ONE COULD ARGUE THAT SUCH TAXATION IS A WAY OF HONOURING THIS BIBLICAL TEACHING OF TAKING CARE OF THE POOR AND THE WEAK.

WELL, WE PRAY 'THY KINGDOM COME, THY WILL BE DONE, ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN'. YOU CAN'T ARGUE THAT IT'S WRONG TO EXPECT RICHER PEOPLE TO GIVE MORE WHEN YOU AGREE WITH IT IN A RELIGIOUS SENSE. YOUR FAITH SHOULD CARRY THROUGH INTO YOUR WHOLE LIFE, YO!

Okay, where did I disagree with this? Our lives ought to emulate the present Kingdom reality, though it is not yet fulfilled.

AND BACK IN BIBLE DAYS, TITHES WERE TOTALLY COMPULSORY. THEY WERE PART OF THE LAW. I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU SAY IT IS 'VOLUNTARY' TO OBEY GOD, YO. LIKE IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN, YOU HAVE GIVEN YOURSELF AS A SERVANT TO CHRIST, TO OBEY HIM. THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES, SURELY, IN YOUR LIFE IF YOU DISOBEY GOD, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY NOT BE SAME CONSEQUENCES OF DISOBEYING THE LAW OF THE LAND.

The Old Testament covenant community existed in the context of a theocracy, which is why the tithe was mandatory according the civil laws of the Mosaic Code. I never said it was voluntary in terms of whether we ought to obey God, but pointing out the fact that a lack of tithing doesn't carry a civil penalty in today's new covenant reality. So unless you're advocating theonomy, we seem to be in agreement.

AND IN GENERAL, BIBLICAL TEACHINGS ARE THAT THOSE WITH MORE SHOULD GIVE TO THOSE WHO HAVE LESS, RATHER THAN HOARDING IT ALL FOR THEMSELVES. SO ONE COULD ARGUE THAT SUCH TAXATION IS A WAY OF HONOURING THIS BIBLICAL TEACHING OF TAKING CARE OF THE POOR AND THE WEAK.

I don't take such a theonomic view of the state. As I said before, the state doesn't bind the conscience. Giving of one's wealth to the poor and needy ought to be a matter of the heart, not a matter of compulsion. Does a man honor God because he is forced to give or because he does so willingly and with a joyous heart? The state cannot force someone to change his heart.

THEN DO YOU ALSO THINK GAY MARRIAGES SHOULD BE LEGALISED, AS THEY ARE A MATTER OF THE HEART, YO?

THEN DO YOU ALSO THINK GAY MARRIAGES SHOULD BE LEGALISED, AS THEY ARE A MATTER OF THE HEART, YO?

No. I don't think the state should be involved in marriage at all. And just because the state can't change hearts doesn't automatically mean that it ought to promote evil.

SO YOU BELIEVE THE STATE SHOULD BAN THINGS THAT YOU THINK THE BIBLE SAYS ARE EVIL, BUT NOT ENFORCE ANYTHING THAT THE BIBLE STATES AS GOOD AND SHOULD BE THE WAY THAT SOCIETY RUNS? THE BIBLE ALSO PROMOTES JUSTICE - BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE ANYONE TRULY SORRY FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE BY PUTTING THEM IN PRISON, SO WHY BOTHER, YO?

SO YOU BELIEVE THE STATE SHOULD BAN THINGS THAT YOU THINK THE BIBLE SAYS ARE EVIL, BUT NOT ENFORCE ANYTHING THAT THE BIBLE STATES AS GOOD AND SHOULD BE THE WAY THAT SOCIETY RUNS?

That's quite a loaded question. I think that the state is a common grace institution that is designed to keep order and restrain evil, but it cannot produce virtue. It can only offer incentives for virtue. To the extent that marriage is brought up, I don't think that the state has any business defining what God has already defined from the very start. I am an adherent of Kuyper's doctrine of sphere sovereignty and that's reflected in my opinions regarding the whole same-sex "marriage" debate.

THE BIBLE ALSO PROMOTES JUSTICE - BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE ANYONE TRULY SORRY FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE BY PUTTING THEM IN PRISON, SO WHY BOTHER, YO?

Sanctions for criminal activity don't exist to make people feel sorry for what they've done. They exist for the sake of equity which is the very basis of the criminal justice system.

AND TAXES DON'T EXIST TO MAKE PEOPLE HAVE A GIVING HEART, YO. THEY EXIST SO THAT EVERYONE MAY HAVE ENOUGH TO EAT AND A ROOF OVER THEIR HEAD.

AND TAXES DON'T EXIST TO MAKE PEOPLE HAVE A GIVING HEART, YO. THEY EXIST SO THAT EVERYONE MAY HAVE ENOUGH TO EAT AND A ROOF OVER THEIR HEAD.

Really? Where's that written? Certainly not in Scripture and definitely not in the Constitution.

IT IS NOT TO DO WITH SCRIPTURE, YO, AS WE ARE NOT TALKING THEONOMY. WE ARE TALKING POLITICS AND THE STATE. IT IS THE BASIC IDEA BEHIND LEFT WING POLITICS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S BEEN WRITTEN IN YOUR CONSTITUTION. YOUR CONSTITUTION IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, AS YOU BROUGHT THIS UP IN RELATION TO THE NHS, WHICH IS BRITISH.

LAWS DON'T EVER EXIST TO CHANGE PEOPLE'S HEARTS - THAT IS A DAFT IDEA, YO. JUST AS CRIMINAL LAW DOESN'T EXIST TO MAKE PEOPLE SORRY FOR WHAT THEY DID, ALSO TAX LAWS DON'T EXIST TO MAKE PEOPLE HAVE GIVING HEARTS. THEY EXIST SO THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE UNABLE TO LOOK AFTER THEMSELVES DO NOT HAVE TO BE LEFT ON THE STREETS TO DIE.

IT IS NOT TO DO WITH SCRIPTURE, YO, AS WE ARE NOT TALKING THEONOMY.

We are indeed talking about theonomy. You're the one who is talking about applying OT civil laws into a modern legal context.

IT IS THE BASIC IDEA BEHIND LEFT WING POLITICS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S BEEN WRITTEN IN YOUR CONSTITUTION. YOUR CONSTITUTION IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, AS YOU BROUGHT THIS UP IN RELATION TO THE NHS, WHICH IS BRITISH.

The U.S. Constitution is not irrelevant. I'm talking about the political context of the United States. I wasn't talking specifically about the British system. The family in question is American, is it not?

JUST AS CRIMINAL LAW DOESN'T EXIST TO MAKE PEOPLE SORRY FOR WHAT THEY DID, ALSO TAX LAWS DON'T EXIST TO MAKE PEOPLE HAVE GIVING HEARTS.

Did I ever disagree with this? You've made my point exactly.

THEY EXIST SO THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE UNABLE TO LOOK AFTER THEMSELVES DO NOT HAVE TO BE LEFT ON THE STREETS TO DIE.

No, they exist to protect special interest groups, keep people in poverty, and perpetuate an under-class that remains a politically valuable part of the electorate. Politicians exploit them through the welfare-state in order that they stay elected. That's how the vicious cycle works. Civil government, by nature, is not altruistic.

NO, YO - YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T WANT TO TALK THEONOMY. THE FAMILY IN QUESTION IS INDEED AMERICAN, BUT IT IS SUPPORTING ITSELF, AND THE POINT YOU BROUGHT UP WAS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT RED FRAGGLE AND HER VIEWS, NOT ABOUT THE DUGGARS. I QUOTE: 'I thought you supported the almighty welfare-state.' THAT WAS DIRECTED AT RED FRAGGLE AND HER VIEWS, YO. YOU WERE THE ONE DIGRESSING. GOSH, YOU ARE BEING SILLY NOW. OF COURSE I MADE YOUR POINT EXACTLY - I WAS REPEATING YOUR POINT IN THE CONTEXT OF MY POINT. I DO NOT AGREE THAT POOR PEOPLE ARE 'SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS'. THEY ARE THE MAJORITY IN AMERICA, YO. I DON'T KNOW WHAT DAFT POTENTIAL WELFARE SYSTEM YOU HAVE IN AMERICA, BUT IN THE UK, THE SYSTEM ACTUALLY HELPS PEOPLE TO FIND EMPLOYMENT. THE SYSTEM GETS ABUSED OF COURSE, BUT SO DOES ANY SYSTEM, DUE TO HUMAN NATURE. THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM IS TOTALLY A VICIOUS CYCLE - THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER, AND THAT IS VERY EVIDENT IN THE US, YO. YOU HAVE MUCH WORSE POVERTY THAN WE DO. A MUCH BIGGER DIVIDE BETWEEN RICH AND POOR.

NO, YO - YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T WANT TO TALK THEONOMY.

No, I have no problem discussing theonomy. I just don't agree with it.

THAT WAS DIRECTED AT RED FRAGGLE AND HER VIEWS, YO. YOU WERE THE ONE DIGRESSING.

Absolutely not. I wasn't the one who brought up the welfare-state in the first place.

I DO NOT AGREE THAT POOR PEOPLE ARE 'SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS'. THEY ARE THE MAJORITY IN AMERICA, YO.

They are made into special interest groups by the left-wing politicians who expolit them for votes. And no, poor people don't make up the majority in the United States. Your source is wrong.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT DAFT POTENTIAL WELFARE SYSTEM YOU HAVE IN AMERICA, BUT IN THE UK, THE SYSTEM ACTUALLY HELPS PEOPLE TO FIND EMPLOYMENT

Really? Then why is the unemployment rate in the UK similar to that in the United States? The welfare-state itself is a failure, regardless of whatever country we're talking about.

THE SYSTEM GETS ABUSED OF COURSE, BUT SO DOES ANY SYSTEM, DUE TO HUMAN NATURE. THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM IS TOTALLY A VICIOUS CYCLE

While it is true that any system is subject to abuse, socialism in particular is susceptible to abuse precisely because it completely ignores human nature.

And by the way, I'm not a pure capitalist or an economic libertarian. I don't know why you and others on this forum have characterized me as such. My views are probably a mixture of distributism and producerism.

THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER, AND THAT IS VERY EVIDENT IN THE US, YO. YOU HAVE MUCH WORSE POVERTY THAN WE DO. A MUCH BIGGER DIVIDE BETWEEN RICH AND POOR.

I don't think that's really true at all. As I pointed out earlier, the unemployment rate is about the same between the two nations. Moreover, Europe as a whole has been relatively stagnant in terms of economic growth for quite awhile. Also, we don't have a market-based system anymore. That ended the moment we went off the gold standard. So long as governments and central banks can manipulate the currency through inflationary policies, we will never have a truly market-based economy.

I know a woman who is on her 15th pregnancy (12th child)...I wonder if some women become addicted to pregnancy and the psychological aspect of being loved/needed by a newborn.

^oops, I mistyped. She's 42.

42's really not that old to have a baby. And it's becoming more and more common. My aunt had my cousin (her only child) at 40. Because she just wasn't lucky enough to meet the right man before then. As long as the woman is healthy, it shouldn't be dangerous at that age. But having repeated pregnancies does increase the chance of complications, whatever your age.

After fourty depending on the woman the percentage of eggs with genetic abnormality is 80-90%. I would be curious to know how many cesareans she has had and whether or not she was given the ok to have this baby.

I couldn't believe that statement you made above... so I had a look myself. And indeed, a study in 1999 did find that 79% of eggs studied from women 40-45 years old were found to have an abnormal spindle appearance.

However, just to put that comment in perspective... that does NOT equate to 80% of women over 40 being at risk of having genetically abnormal pregnancies. In fact even over the age of 40, the chance of having a genetically abnormal pregnancy is still less than 3% (and I found several other sources that put it at even lower). So yes, the risk is higher than for younger women (particularly for conditions like Downs), but it's still not HIGH.

However, it's the number of pregnancies and deliveries she's had which would concern me, and I'd also be interested to know what medical advice she was given regarding becoming pregnant again, and how many caesarians she's had.

I think this is her 4th or 5th cesarean. They've told her that she may have to keep having repeat C-sections if she keeps having children because of the risk of uterine rupture.

I googled and it said it was her 2nd, one with a set of twins, then this one, but then other articles stated different things.